Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

Show Me

Date: 24 October, 2000

By: Chief

hat's right. Show me. Show me specifically, exactly where within the Constitution of the United States does the Congress have the Constitutional authority to enact legislation creating the bureaucratic juggernaut commonly referred to as social security? If you would rather not tackle that one, then show me, specifically and exactly, where within the Constitution of the United States does the Congress have the Constitutional authority to enact legislation creating the bureaucratic nightmare also known as welfare? If such authority exists, it will be quite easy to locate. Contained within the Constitution of the United States is a section, Section 8 to be exact, of the first article and is entitled "Powers Granted to Congress." If such authority to establish, by law, can not be found within Article I, Section 8, then said authority does not exist — period.

Now I can show you, on the other hand, where Congress is (1) limited in its authority and (2) proscribed from enacting such hideous law. Since I just opened my mouth ... real wide, or to be a bit more accurate, ran my keyboard wide open ... I had better show you what I'm talking about. The first limitation on the authority of Congress is contained in Article I, Section 8 itself. Clause 18. Also known as the 'necessary and proper clause' and is quoted:

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

The operative words or phrases are "which shall be necessary and proper ... the foregoing powers." The other key phrase is "all other powers vested by the Constitution." In other words, if the powers are not contained withing the Constitution, the Congress has no, as in zero, authority to enact a law to create what, under the Constitution, cannot be. Further, if the power or authority is not listed Congress has, once again, no, as in zero, authority to enact or create a law which it has no authority to create or regulate — in the first place.

The next limiting authority placed on Congress is the 'supremacy clause'. This clause is found in Article VI, Section 2 and is quoted here:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Here again, the operatives words or phrases are "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" and "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." As such, each and every law enacted by Congress shall (which is mandatory) be made in pursuance thereof ... the Constitution. Shall be made in furtherance of the limited powers granted to Congress under the Constitution. Additionally, every judge shall adhere to the supreme law of the land — if enacted within the Constitutional authority granted to the Congress. Hence, if a law is enacted by Congress which Congress has no Constitutional authority to enact it is the duty of the judiciary to strike such law.

On to the proscribing powers. The first Constitutional provision proscribing Congress from enacting law where it has no authority to do so is the Ninth Amendment — the enumeration of rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In essence, the Ninth Amendment is saying ... just because rights are not listed in the Constitution does not mean they do not exist. Further the Ninth Amendment acts as a buttress, a concrete bridge abutment if you will, reenforcing the limitations imposed upon the Congress under Article I and the executive under Article II.

Finally there is the Tenth Amendment. To be sure, the Tenth Amendment is a declaration reenforcing the limitations imposed upon the Congress and the executive. The Tenth Amendment is quoted as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Not only does the Tenth Amendment tell the Congress in no uncertain terms what their limitations are and to proceed no further than those limitations, i.e., stay within your small sandbox, the Tenth Amendment buttresses the Ninth Amendment as well and does so quite nicely — thank you.

I bring this dissertation before you, before We the People, for a simple and singular reason. Has the Congress, controlled by either the Democrats or Republicans, stayed within their small sandbox as mandated by the Constitution and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? The answer, I submit, is clear enough that a blind man could see — NO! Not even close. Social security and welfare are just two examples of thousands. The Constitution makes no provision whatsoever to allow Congress to enact laws creating either program with all the associated bureaucrats and their regulations. Bureaucrats and regulations which do nothing but impose restrictions on our liberty. Restrictions placed on the liberty and enumerable rights retained, not granted to but retained, by We the People.

So tell me why in the world in the name of liberty, in the name of the Constitution, would you cast your vote for a candidate running for any office who is a member of either the Democratic or Republican parties? It makes no sense at all.

I have heard people say 'you just can't trust the government'. Duh! Yet these same people are unwilling to risk a change in government. They still vote the ... party line. They still vote for the same political parties of criminals who brought us social security, who brought us welfare. These people still vote for the same political parties who consistently refuse to abolish social security. Who consistently refuse to abolish welfare. Go ahead, take your pick, Democrat or Republican. Has either party not reformed welfare, but abolished it? NO! Indeed, in 1996 both parties were crowing about the 'end of welfare as we know it'. Then why does welfare cost We the People more today than it did in 1996?

Neither political party wants to discuss social security. Uh-uh, no way. However, Congressional hearings and presidential commissions have both reported the same thing. Social security will become bankrupt — that means insolvent — about the year 2012 through 2015. In the vernacular, social security is a scam. A scam perpetrated upon We the People by the exact same people who we elected to represent us. Certainly it is a scam perpetrated by the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats brought the initial law onto the books and the Republicans are to scared to abolish it. As such, both parties are guilty of fraud.

Social security is nothing more than a "Ponzi scheme." Mr. Ponzi, for whom the scam or scheme is named ended up in jail. With that in mind, let me ask the question once again,

— Why would you cast your vote for a candidate from either the Democratic or Republican parties when it is a known fact that (1) both parties exceed their Constitutional authority wilfully and (2) are guilty of perpetrating fraud upon We the People? —

It is time for a change — a change which only We the People can make. Come election day, most certainly vote. However, think before you cast your vote.